Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Legislators Oppose Proposition 2’s Obamacare Expansion

“Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion is unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible, and wrong for Idaho,” ~ Rep. John Vander Woude

Milliman Legislators Oppose Proposition 2’s Obamacare Expansion

House Members, Candidates Announce Opposition
To Proposition 2’S Obamacare Expansion

Nampa, ID—On Thursday, nearly 30 members of the Idaho House of Representatives and legislative candidates announced their opposition to Proposition 2, the Obamacare expansion that will appear on the ballot in November.

State Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, warned voters against Obamacare expansion’s longterm consequences.

“Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion is unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible, and wrong for
Idaho,” Vander Woude warned. He also urged voters not to fall for the promise of “free” federal money.

To suggest that the federal government, which is in debt up to its ears and continues to run nearly trillion-dollar deficits, can keep its Obamacare expansion funding promises is simply inaccurate, the House members and candidates warned.

Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion would grow the state’s Medicaid program to cover primarily able-bodied, childless adults. Progressive activists needed a $500,000 cash infusion from an out-of-state organization, The Fairness Project, to get the Obamacare measure on the ballot.

The House members and candidates cautioned against Obamacare expansion because it extends the program beyond the program’s foundational purpose, which is to provide a safety net for the truly needy, including pregnant women, children, and the disabled.

The legislators and candidates also urged Idahoans to avoid the Obamacare expansion failures of states like California, where enrollment overruns have led to higher-than-expected costs for taxpayers.

Rep. Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls, said Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion could jeopardize funding for other critical programs.

“Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion, with its ballooning costs, will threaten the proper funding of our schools, roads, and every other public service,” Zollinger said. “Obamacare expansion would also make thousands of Idahoans more dependent on the government.”

House members and legislative candidates opposed to Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion include:

Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa
Rep. Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard
Rep. Sage Dixon, R-Ponderay
Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens
Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Coeur d’Alene
Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-Whitebird
Rep. Paul Shepherd, R-Riggins
Rep. Dorothy Moon, R-Stanley
Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale
Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa
Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian
Rep. James Holtzclaw, R-Meridian
Rep. Tom Dayley, R-Boise
Rep. Christy Zito, R-Hammett
Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls
Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg
Rep. Karey Hanks, R-St. Anthony
Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell
Rep. Steven Harris, R-Meridian
Rep. Gayann DeMordaunt, R-Eagle
Tammy Nichols, Middleton
Julianne Young, Blackfoot
Chad Christensen, Ammon
Kevin Brown, Pocatello
Kevin Andrus, Lava Hot Springs
Tony Wisniewski, Post Falls
Doug Ricks, Rexburg
John Green, Rathdrum

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

1 Comment on Legislators Oppose Proposition 2’s Obamacare Expansion

  1. ““Proposition 2’s Obamacare expansion is unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible, and wrong for Idaho,””

    Do you stand for our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC? Have you ever read the US Constitution, even glanced through the pocket US Constitution? Because if you have done either you should immediately spot the inaccuracies within that sentence.

    “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 384 (1947): “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power.”

    US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5: “No Person except a NATURAL BORN Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” (words in all caps are mine)

    Three qualifications are REQUIRED to be present for anyone who runs for and serves as a US President;
    — NATURAL BORN Citizen (because there is no one still alive that existed when our US Constitution was written)
    — attained to the Age of thirty five Years
    — fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

    Let’s start with the definition that our framers used for “Natural born”, not what the controlled media was/is telling everyone. It was always known exactly what the framers meant by the words “natural born” because the constitutional framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” within the Constitution a formal definition of the term already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations (when they held the Federal Convention of 1787).

    From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens of our new nation.

    Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

    § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    § 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

    § 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

    §§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

    Why are these things important to know? Because our Constitution, like all contracts (its a compact between the states, a supreme contract for all who serve within our governments – state and federal) means exactly what it says. Its meaning, as with all contracts, are as written, with the meaning of the words being the same as when it was written – not changing daily, weekly through-out the decades, etc.

    Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

    “In the construction of these instruments the following rules are actually observed:
    1. The practical construction must be uniform. A constitution does not mean one thing at one time and another at some subsequent time.
    2. The object of construction is to give effect to the intent of the people in establishing the Constitution; it is the intent of the law giver that is to be enforced. But the intent is to be found in the instrument itself. . .” Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law, 3rd. ed. (1898), pp. 386-387. (Little & Brown Co.)

    Obama was NEVER a US President and it matters NOT how many votes he may have received. Even if 100% of the country had voted for him, he could NEVER be a US President. His father was NEVER a US Citizen, and his mother had renounced her citizenship (fairly certain she never applied to
    get it back, but it matters not if she did or did not).

    So what did we have when the presidential impersonator “was in office”? Treason committed by every single person who served within our US Government, and by many who served within our state governments because they KNOWINGLY, or were REQUIRED by their Oath to know that Obama did NOT meet the constitutional requirements, and there are ONLY 3 of them.

    Now you know who is the “swamp”, who must be charged with treason, and many other crimes. That is up to us, because the US Constitution REQUIRES the people to be the Militia and do the specific put-into-writing duties.

    Section 8, Clause 15, The Congress shall have Power: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this nation that requires that ALL legislation be in “Pursuance thereof” it) and each state’s Constitution (Highest Law of the state),
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    With those requirements, it is a crime for any other agency to enforce those listed within the US Constitution. That is also why those who serve within our governments are NOT to have the weapons; read this following comment carefully!

    Tench Coxe, Delegate, Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTH-RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

    Nothing that Obama and his treasonous minions did was/is LAWFUL. Those actions are not binding on the American people, nor are they binding on the nation. He never had that LAWFUL authority. But even IF he had been a LAWFUL US President, which he wasn’t, Presidents cannot make LEGISLATION, that is the duties of those who actually serve within the Senate and the House of Representatives.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 1: “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (caps are mine)

    There is an important rule of constitutional law called the “Canon of Antisuperfluity (or canon against surplusage)”, means that every single word of the Constitution, or lesser laws, should be given legal effect unless their context clearly shows they have no meaning. Legislation that is not in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution is “NULL AND VOID”, not binding on the American people, nor binding on our nation.

    Gov. Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention of the U.S. Constitution (1788): “When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”

    Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina’s ratifying convention: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’”

    Mark Twain: “For in a Republic, who is “the country?” Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*